Since those who voted for the PAP endorsed everything under the sun - no matter how irrelevant it is - as long as it makes them and the PAP look bad, then it follows that those who voted for the SDP must at least be endorsing something at least somewhat related to the SDP.

*

In a cursory search on Facebook, I've seen people claiming that 70% of people in Singapore voted for or support:

The logic behind this is something like one person's claiming that 70% of Singaporeans support 377A because "Not voicing out one's objection to a law effectively means that one is fine with the status quo".

That's a wild claim and a huge generalisation to make about 70% of the electorate.

And it also leads to self-contradictory conclusions.

For example:

70% of Singaporeans are nature lovers - because the government preserved Chek Jawa. Chek Jawa is a wonderful place with lots of bio-diversity, so 70% of Singaporeans approve of keeping it instead of having development there and destroying the nature there. Singaporeans see the value in nature and don't support economic growth at all costs.

vs

70% of Singaporeans don't care about nature - because the government is presenting 2 options for the Cross Island Line - but neither of them have 0 impact on the environment. So 70% of Singaporeans support damaging the environment. They are heartless and don't understand that only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money.

I'm sure you can think of many more examples.

The reality is that when people vote, they are voting for a package - not just a candidate (or candidates in the case of a GRC), but also a party, a party leader, a platform and more.

Voting for one party does not mean you are agreeing with 100% of what that party dos or stands for, much less anything that happens in a country.

This is of course assuming that people are voting in a bona fide way, and that they don't think their vote can be tracked, or that they're not voting for the sake of voting, e.g. just because it's compulsory or because they're accompanying friends and/or family to vote.

Since those who voted for the PAP endorsed everything under the sun - no matter how irrelevant it is - as long as it makes them and the PAP look bad, then it follows that those who voted for the SDP must at least be endorsing something at least somewhat related to the SDP.

*

In a cursory search on Facebook, I've seen people claiming that 70% of people in Singapore voted for or support:

The logic behind this is something like one person's claiming that 70% of Singaporeans support 377A because "Not voicing out one's objection to a law effectively means that one is fine with the status quo".

That's a wild claim and a huge generalisation to make about 70% of the electorate.

And it also leads to self-contradictory conclusions.

For example:

70% of Singaporeans are nature lovers - because the government preserved Chek Jawa. Chek Jawa is a wonderful place with lots of bio-diversity, so 70% of Singaporeans approve of keeping it instead of having development there and destroying the nature there. Singaporeans see the value in nature and don't support economic growth at all costs.

vs

70% of Singaporeans don't care about nature - because the government is presenting 2 options for the Cross Island Line - but neither of them have 0 impact on the environment. So 70% of Singaporeans support damaging the environment. They are heartless and don't understand that only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money.

I'm sure you can think of many more examples.

The reality is that when people vote, they are voting for a package - not just a candidate (or candidates in the case of a GRC), but also a party, a party leader, a platform and more.

Voting for one party does not mean you are agreeing with 100% of what that party dos or stands for, much less anything that happens in a country.

This is of course assuming that people are voting in a bona fide way, and that they don't think their vote can be tracked, or that they're not voting for the sake of voting, e.g. just because it's compulsory or because they're accompanying friends and/or family to vote.